Section 21, 22 and 23 of the Act
are basically provisions that require the consent of the Governor in
transactions concerning Land Ownership. The implication of this on customary
Land tenure system is that no holder of customary or statutory right of
occupancy can alienate this right of occupancy without the consent of the Local
Government Chairman or
State Governor, as the
case may be and if the alienation is done without the necessary consent, S. 26
of the Act provides that the whole transaction will be declared null and void and
can be a ground for revocation of the right of occupancy or the holder may be penalized.
Alienation simply means to assign
by away of conveyance, mortgage, lease, sub – lease or part with possession of
the land in whatever way by the holder. It has been observed that the
prohibition placed on alienation of right of occupancy is not water – tight in
that the holder of a right of occupancy is at liberty, without any legal
restriction, to negotiate the alienation of his right of occupancy. Thus, in Onuboys
Technical Services Limited V Union Banks of Nig. Ltd. Wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: “A holder
of a right of occupancy may enter into an agreement or contract with a view to
alienation his right of occupancy. To enter into such an agreement, or
contract, he does not need the consent of the Governor”. Notwithstanding these anxiety and
fear expressed concerning the consent provision of the Act, the National
Assembly appears reluctant to amend, review or repeal the Land Use Act.
LACK OF EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION
The Lack of exclusive possession
is also an impediment in ownership of land in Nigeria. The effect of S. 14 of
the Act is that in relation to the land itself, the holder should have
exclusive rights against all persons other than the Governor. Therefore, the
holder does not have exclusive possession of the land he occupies. The Governor
can revoke the right of occupancy of overriding public interest. And the holder
has no right to object to the revocation for overriding public interest. It
should be noted that when revoking a right of occupancy for an overriding
public interest, the Governor must comply with the statutory provisions in that
direction otherwise the revocation will be declared null and void even if it is
intended for overriding public interest.
THE INSECURITY
OF TITLE
Since SS. 6(3) and 28 of the Act
empower the Local government and the Governor to revoke any right of occupancy
for the overriding public interest, and also the vesting of ownership of land
in the state to the Governor of the state, the Land Use Act has created the
problem of insecurity of title to holder of right of occupancy.
One of the most pre – requisite
for adequate provision of housing is security of title to lands, for it is on
land the house will stand. The importants of land to housing are of twofold: it
provides the base on which the house is built, and it could also serve as
security for raising capital to build the house by way of mortgage.
But since the title given by the
Governor is not secured as it sounds, this has surely affected the development of
housing sector of the economy. Note that there are some other effects of Land
Use Act on acquisition and ownership, but we are obliged to do with the once
highlighted above for want of space.